Can't find it anywhere else though, including MLBTR, so I have my doubts.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8688

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/cin/transactions

320

reds1869

11-14-2010, 09:33 AM

That is a very nice pickup. Glad to see Walt isn't standing still and is bolstering an already solid pen.

TheNext44

11-14-2010, 10:02 AM

CBS sports has it too.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/transactions

What does this mean? Do they have to sign him to a new contract? He was put on waivers by the Mets because he wanted a multi year deal at around $3-4 a year. I don't know how Japanese players contract status works.

Anyone know what the deal is?

Scrap Irony

11-14-2010, 10:08 AM

Good move, assuming he doesn't cost too much. Nice swing man for the pen, or, perhaps, the successor for Rhodes? If so, it's an even better move, as I believe a larger market team will sign him for big bucks.

JaxRed

11-14-2010, 10:24 AM

I'm not sure about this one. Maybe Brutus can weigh in. So his contract says that he must be released and granted free agency if they couldn't agree on contract.

Mets waive him to give him FA but, he doesn't clear waivers, meaning his original contract is still in effect. So it would seem like Reds are now in same position.

Absolutely no information from the Reds on this deal. And how did he get by so many teams?

reds1869

11-14-2010, 10:33 AM

I don't know how Japanese players contract status works.

The second he signs an MLB contract he is no longer a "Japanese" player. He is bound by the same rules as any other player domestic or international.

lollipopcurve

11-14-2010, 10:36 AM

I read somewhere that under unconditional release waivers the player can refuse the claim and become a free agent. But still many questions -- how much time does the player get to make that decision? It appears, at least for now, that the Reds still control him.

I think this would be an excellent pickup. Takahasi has shown he can spot-start, set up or close. That kind of versatility is very rare. And as a LH he would provide even more balance. Even though he's in his mid-30s, I'd give him 3 years at a few million per year. Sounds like the Phillies would be interested, if he escapes the Reds' clutches.

Plus, it would be cool to have a Japanese player on the team, no?

UKFlounder

11-14-2010, 10:39 AM

It's almost a no-lose proposition though. If the Reds claim him but can't agree on a deal, just release him.

That assumes they did not have to clear a roster spot to claim him and won't lose anybody due to that.

I'm not sure about this one. Maybe Brutus can weigh in. So his contract says that he must be released and granted free agency if they couldn't agree on contract.

Mets waive him to give him FA but, he doesn't clear waivers, meaning his original contract is still in effect. So it would seem like Reds are now in same position.

Absolutely no information from the Reds on this deal. And how did he get by so many teams?

JaxRed

11-14-2010, 10:50 AM

I'm not saying it's a bad deal. Quite he opposite. Just a strange deal. Why haven't the Reds said anything? How did he get past so many teams? Has he ever tasted Cincinnati chili? Do the Reds have to release him if they can't do a deal?

savafan

11-14-2010, 11:36 AM

Has he ever tasted Cincinnati chili?

I think this is the most important question.

mth123

11-14-2010, 11:41 AM

This certainluy provides the Reds some options. Keep Takahashi and let Rhodes go. Sign Rhodes and waive Takahashi. Keep both and make Bray available in a deal. It provides an option that didn't exist before since there really aren't any relief lefties who are ready. It may also signal Chapman in the rotation at AAA as opposed to the big league pen.

Like the move alot.

jojo

11-14-2010, 11:50 AM

I read somewhere that under unconditional release waivers the player can refuse the claim and become a free agent. But still many questions -- how much time does the player get to make that decision? It appears, at least for now, that the Reds still control him.

I think this would be an excellent pickup. Takahasi has shown he can spot-start, set up or close. That kind of versatility is very rare. And as a LH he would provide even more balance. Even though he's in his mid-30s, I'd give him 3 years at a few million per year. Sounds like the Phillies would be interested, if he escapes the Reds' clutches.

Plus, it would be cool to have a Japanese player on the team, no?

Basically Takahasi is a free agent. The Reds don't really control him.

blumj

11-14-2010, 12:07 PM

Basically Takahasi is a free agent. The Reds don't really control him.
Is the point of making the claim a chance to make him an offer before other teams get a chance, or even just to show interest? Unless a player already has a contract that is acceptable to both him and the claiming team, I'm not sure what the purpose of a claim off unconditional release waivers would be.

mth123

11-14-2010, 12:10 PM

This is from Cots

Unconditional Release Waivers
A club that wishes to release a player places him on unconditional release waivers. He then may be claimed for $1, but the player has five days to choose whether to accept it or refuse the claim and become a free agent. If the player rejects the claim, he become a free agent and forfeits the remaining money due on his contract. If the player accepts the claim, the new team pays him under the contract he signed with his former team. If no team claims the player, he becomes a free agent.

jojo

11-14-2010, 12:41 PM

Is the point of making the claim a chance to make him an offer before other teams get a chance, or even just to show interest? Unless a player already has a contract that is acceptable to both him and the claiming team, I'm not sure what the purpose of a claim off unconditional release waivers would be.

In this instance, it gave the Reds exclusive negotiation rights for a short window so if they're interested, it makes perfect sense. However, given what he was asking from NY, it doesn't seem likely to me that the Reds would be able to convince him to forgo free agency. But you never know.

lollipopcurve

11-14-2010, 01:16 PM

Basically Takahasi is a free agent. The Reds don't really control him.

Until he rejects the waiver claim, they do.

jojo

11-14-2010, 01:24 PM

Until he rejects the waiver claim, they do.

It's essentially a meaningless distinction.

lollipopcurve

11-14-2010, 01:43 PM

It's essentially a meaningless distinction.

If you read my post, you'll see that the distinction I made is entirely accurate. You're quibbling.

jojo

11-14-2010, 01:47 PM

If you read my post, you'll see that the distinction I made is entirely accurate. You're quibbling.

I don't get what the fuss is about?

Patrick Bateman

11-14-2010, 01:58 PM

You guys really need to find more interesting things to argue about.

Brutus

11-14-2010, 02:00 PM

It's essentially a meaningless distinction.

It's not really meaningless, because if he doesn't reject the claim, the Reds do in fact gain his rights.

From what I understand, there's now two options: he can reject the assignment and become a free agent as his contract stipulated, or he can accept the claim and then the Reds gain his rights to tender a contract.

jojo

11-14-2010, 02:05 PM

It's not really meaningless, because if he doesn't reject the claim, the Reds do in fact gain his rights.

From what I understand, there's now two options: he can reject the assignment and become a free agent as his contract stipulated, or he can accept the claim and then the Reds gain his rights to tender a contract.

Given what he wanted from NY, does it seem likely the Reds will convince him to opt out of the free agent market? In other words, what are the odds he doesn't refuse the claim?

It cost the Reds $1 to claim him. It'll cost him $.25 to phone their FO and give his regrets.

It's pretty much meaningless.

redsfandan

11-14-2010, 02:13 PM

Given what he wanted from NY, does it seem likely the Reds will convince him to opt out of the free agent market? In other words, what are the odds he doesn't refuse the claim?

It cost the Reds $1 to claim him. It'll cost him $.25 to phone their FO and give his regrets.

It's pretty much meaningless.
Then why would they bother to even put a claim on him?

Brutus

11-14-2010, 02:13 PM

Given what he wanted from NY, does it seem likely the Reds will convince him to opt out of the free agent market? In other words, what are the odds he doesn't refuse the claim?

It cost the Reds $1 to claim him. It'll cost him $.25 to phone their FO and give his regrets.

It's pretty much meaningless.

I wouldn't say it's meaningless since the Reds have 5 days to use exclusive negotiating rights. If he doesn't reject the assignment, they then have his total rights.

blumj

11-14-2010, 02:18 PM

It's worth a dollar just to make sure he goes on the market, instead of potentially accepting a waiver claim and guesstimated market value offer from the Phillies, in case he happened to be inclined to do something like that just to annoy the Mets.

Edit: I'm pretty sure every player has the right to refuse a claim off unconditional release waivers. MLB tends to be goofy as heck, but wouldn't that have to be true to make it unconditional?

TheNext44

11-14-2010, 02:23 PM

Given what he wanted from NY, does it seem likely the Reds will convince him to opt out of the free agent market? In other words, what are the odds he doesn't refuse the claim?

It cost the Reds $1 to claim him. It'll cost him $.25 to phone their FO and give his regrets.

It's pretty much meaningless.

25 cents for a phone call? He doesn't have an unlimited calling plan? ;)

But seriously, I pretty much agree with you. Technically, it's not meaningless, but for all intents and purposes, it is. I can't imagine the Reds being willing to offer him the years he wants, let alone the salary. At least I hope they aren't.

But hey, I've done more meaningless things for a buck. lol

Brutus

11-14-2010, 02:29 PM

It's worth a dollar just to make sure he goes on the market, instead of potentially accepting a waiver claim and guesstimated market value offer from the Phillies, in case he happened to be inclined to do something like that just to annoy the Mets.

Edit: I'm pretty sure every player has the right to refuse a claim off unconditional release waivers. MLB tends to be goofy as heck, but wouldn't that have to be true to make it unconditional?

Correct. Every player does have the right to refuse waivers. If they do so, the club does not have to pay any termination pay, so both the Reds and Mets would be off the hook for that.

JaxRed

11-14-2010, 02:39 PM

I am willing to reimburse the Reds the $1.00 for the waiver claim. Please have the Reds contact me here.

mth123

11-14-2010, 02:48 PM

Given what he wanted from NY, does it seem likely the Reds will convince him to opt out of the free agent market? In other words, what are the odds he doesn't refuse the claim?

It cost the Reds $1 to claim him. It'll cost him $.25 to phone their FO and give his regrets.

It's pretty much meaningless.

Well he won't get that as a free agent in a flooded market either. If the Reds offer a couple million and a season pitching in a pennant race as opposed to the probable baseball hell that the Mets will be in 2011, that might be an entirely different decision process.

Gallen5862

11-14-2010, 09:20 PM

Here is some information I found on Baseball America. Does anyone know if he had been off a 40 man roster before?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?cat=7

The players here who elected free agency earned that right by virtue of their removal from the 40-man roster. The first time this happens they have no recourse—it's either minor league assignment or a new organization on a waiver claim. Upon second removal from the 40-man (and all subsequent outrights), he can elect free agency once he clears waivers. This is the case for Eddie Bonine (Tigers), Mike Hessman (Mets) and Steven Jackson (Pirates), among others

Brutus

11-14-2010, 09:31 PM

Here is some information I found on Baseball America. Does anyone know if he had been off a 40 man roster before?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?cat=7

The players here who elected free agency earned that right by virtue of their removal from the 40-man roster. The first time this happens they have no recourse—it's either minor league assignment or a new organization on a waiver claim. Upon second removal from the 40-man (and all subsequent outrights), he can elect free agency once he clears waivers. This is the case for Eddie Bonine (Tigers), Mike Hessman (Mets) and Steven Jackson (Pirates), among others

Negative. He was just signed as an international free agent this past year. That's a little bit different situation, though. A release doesn't count against the outright off a 40-man roster.

Gallen5862

11-14-2010, 09:35 PM

Thanks Brutus for the information.

wolfboy

11-15-2010, 11:42 AM

It looks like the two sides could not come to an agreement. It was worth a try.

It's pretty doubtful that he'll re-sign with the Mets because he would need to wait until May 15th for it to happen.

Ron Madden

11-15-2010, 11:59 AM

He'll most likely go to the Phillies.

Unassisted

11-15-2010, 12:03 PM

It looks like the two sides could not come to an agreement. It was worth a try.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101115&content_id=16099674&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101115&content_id=16099674&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb)
What does this pair of sentences from that article mean?

Takahashi's original contract with the Mets stipulated that if he couldn't reach a deal with New York, he would be ineligible to re-sign with the club until after May 15. If the Reds are the releasing team, however, that circumstance could change.

JaxRed

11-15-2010, 12:07 PM

Means that he could resign with the Mets since Reds are the one that actually released him. (assuming they are right).

I wonder if this was an agreement between Reds Mets and Takahasi to make the Reds the ineligble team, and having him able to go back to Mets if he desires. The Reds might have done this as a favor, with some favor due back at some point.

KoryMac5

11-15-2010, 12:14 PM

Means that he could resign with the Mets since Reds are the one that actually released him. (assuming they are right).

I wonder if this was an agreement between Reds Mets and Takahasi to make the Reds the ineligble team, and having him able to go back to Mets if he desires. The Reds might have done this as a favor, with some favor due back at some point.

Could be as Walt and Sandy have been pretty close. Walt gave the Mets a pretty nice endorsement of Sandy too.

TRF

11-15-2010, 01:32 PM

Means that he could resign with the Mets since Reds are the one that actually released him. (assuming they are right).

I wonder if this was an agreement between Reds Mets and Takahasi to make the Reds the ineligble team, and having him able to go back to Mets if he desires. The Reds might have done this as a favor, with some favor due back at some point.

This is an area of "GMing" that Walt seems to excel at... the good ole boy network. And that isn't a slam at all. It's nice not having the Reds front office reviled by others.